Skip to main content

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: cooperway4 Date: Jan 6, 2011 5:13pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Please remove

Well, my advice to you is, if you don't like the way the law reads, you should lobby Congress to change it.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Video-Cellar Date: Jan 6, 2011 7:27pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Please remove

My advice to you is to look at the definitions in the act:

(5) The term "restored copyright" means copyright in a restored work under this section.
(6) The term "restored work" means an original work of authorship that—

(A) is protected under subsection (a);
(B) is not in the public domain in its source country through expiration of term of protection;
(C) is in the public domain in the United States due to—

(i) noncompliance with formalities imposed at any time by United States copyright law, including failure of renewal, lack of proper notice, or failure to comply with any manufacturing requirements;
(ii) lack of subject matter protection in the case of sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972; or
(iii) lack of national eligibility;

(D) has at least one author or rightholder who was, at the time the work was created, a national or domiciliary of an eligible country, and if published, was first published in an eligible country and not published in the United States during the 30-day period following publication in such eligible country; and
(E) if the source country for the work is an eligible country solely by virtue of its adherence to the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty, is a sound recording.

Nothing about the work having to be "restored" in the repaired sense. All references to a "restored work" in the act refer to a work that qualifies to have its copyright restored under that section. Nothing more. Nothing less. The definition leaves no room to read anything else into the meaning of "restored work".